Seems a long shot...

I'd guess some sort of suspended animation/hibernation is still the best bet for long distance travel. (Either that or ships big enough to house a sustainable colony (Yes I know this insn a new idea)

(Just play videos of the 'Queens Speach' (presidential address?) the astronauts will soon fall asleep)

We don't need warp speed...they only need it in Sci fi stories to let the plot move quick enough!

Look at how increased speed of travel on this planet has changed society... quite a bit, ok, but we still managed before UPS overnight delivery!

Actually, the Orion drive system promised substantial fractions of light speed back in the 1950s and 60s. With Fusion drive levels we could own our solar system, already, quite easily. Yet another example of the green movement stepping on its own toes. While not practical for voyages to another star it would certainly be a serious step forward in bringing mankind out into space in large numbers.

Hi Guest, you wrote: "Actually, the Orion drive system promised substantial fractions of light speed back in the 1950s and 60s. With Fusion drive levels we could own our solar system, already, quite easily."

The Orion proposal used fission, i.e., ordinary, external nuclear explosions working against a reaction plate. One can understand why that never got off the ground. There were some ideas of using inertial confinement fusion, but fusion is still a pipe dream (it is still uncontrollable). Maybe one day...

Jorrie

PS: AFAIK, fusion also still requires more input energy than it can deliver as output, hence it is only 'useful' in weapons at the moment.

While warp drive and fission explosions have problems another method I herd about is to use super cooled hydrogen and then superheat it using a fission reactor.This Could help shorten a trip to mars.

Jesus went into low earth orbit and now he flies around the planet in his cloaked space ship. I can see him because I have a magic peeping stone given to me by the Angel Moroni on my telescope.

Jesus also has hyper warp drive which gives instant transportation to any point in the universe instantaneously.

"The problem with the idea is that it needs negative mass-energy, which remains purely hypothetical and on top of that, you need lots of it. "

Science??? More like some media writer read a bit of Sci-Fi and wrote a puff piece as filler for the Sunday Slick Paper insert.

Not in my lifetime or yours either, if ever.

I don't think that Orion was ever really a practical solution although there is no doubt it was workable and would, as stated, have provided the keys to the solar system.

Of course in an emergency (check out Larry Nivens Footfall for example) I guess it would provide a needed solution.

However, what is really needed is a total paradigm shift in order to achieve FTL (if it's possible at all that is) to something almost certainly unimagined right now.

For any one interested, we have had the capability for "warp drive" since the seventies. The device is very simple and has one moving part. I have seen a demonstration of it's energy production application. 10 to the 15th power watts is an easily achievable out put. However the devices magnetic field is at such a density that it for all intents cuts off the device from the universal gravitational constant.

Hi Dragonsfarm, you wrote: "However the devices magnetic field is at such a density that it for all intents cuts off the device from the universal gravitational constant."

Great! So anti-gravity has also arrived...

Jorrie

Dear Jorrie, it's not anti-gravity any more than a bubble rising through the ocean is anti-water. The device wraps an inertial field around itself. Thereby insulating itself from gravity.

Dragonsfarm

Yup, I think I'd have to call "bullshit" on that one...

If such a device were available it would have been put into use by someone by now.

I hope your mind opens a little. And it has and is being used.

Dragonsfarm

So, Dragonsfarm, I have a closed mind eh? Well, there you go.

Do you actually have any to support your statements?

Yeah, I know that as the basis of the scientific methiod actually proving something that you hold as a cherished "truth" is pretty much anathema but come along, let's actually prove our arguments, not just make baseless statements.

Over recent years a number of attempts to "prove" devices such as you mention have been made and all have failed scientific analysis. Why should I accept that your postulate is any different?

Any hey, crying "conspiracy" does not equal proof.

If you please, do research into John Searl and Rho Sigma

I had a look at the work of the 2 guys you mentioned, dragon.

Verrrry interesting stuff.

I wonder how much of a co-incidence it is that the optimum design for the craft is the UFO shapes we keep hearing so much about?

It would also be fascinating to see any details about what happens INSIDE the craft when the effect is occurring. Controlled gravity, inertialessness, perhaps?

Jorrie, recall the scientific debates before detonating the 1st nuclear and 1st hydrogen device, would we set the atmosphere or the seas on fire? Similarly, if we caused a rent or a fissure in space, how do we know that we wouldn't let most of the energy of the Universe out, just like sticking a pin into the inside surface of a balloon? I'd bet on "discovering" what Dark Matter and Dark Energy are, and employing that force to defeat the "physical" laws of the Universe, as we know them.

The "laws" as you have stated are more like working theories. Not even all physicists agree on the functioning of them.

Maybe we shouldn't consentrate on a warp drive to make the ship go faster. How about something to slow down everything else relative to the ship?

Speed is a function of the surrounding space-time. Outside of it the field does not interact with solid matter inside.

Dragonsfarm

I think the prospects seem interesting, but even if it ever became a possibillity, it would be far too dangerous to use.

Consider this: traveling at a high velocity (outside your crafts reference frame of course) means reduced reaction time to avoid collisions with objects in space. The best you could hope for is a short burst, followed by a slowing down and scanning ahead to detect any potential hazards. Granted, eventually you could establish some sort of cosmic "highway" where the odds of a collision are small, but the inital exploration would still be very hazardous. (of course, all of this assumes manned craft) Also consider, what would happen if you got into close proximity of a sufficiently massive object, such as a planet or star. Would the natual curves in spacetime affect the warp you had created, possibly even destabalizing them and causing huge stresses on your craft? These problems lend themselves to suggesting that travelling at such speeds would be limited within our solar system.

Another question would be, assuming you could get a massive amount of negative energy to create the warp, for how long could you sustain it? How much "fuel" would you need to get a few light years out and back? The nearest confirmed extrasolar planet is 15 light years away after all.

A friend of mine, Brad Andrews, once wrote (and may still be writing) a series of stories where the starships were protected by fans of lasers that destroyed everything in their path. Leaving aside the power requirements and anything approaching scientific accuracy, can you imagine the sight?

A case of not letting reality get in the way of a beautiful image.

Hi, Jorrie!

Well, everything we know to date about negative energy (A.K.A exotic matter) seems to point to this not being the means to that end. When it comes to cosmic banking, the large loans on the negative energy required to fund warp drive appear to have a very, very steep interest rate of positive energy.

However, discussions and theories into this domain will no doubt lead to new knowledge and opportunities to better understand our universe.

I have serious reservations that warp drive will ever be achieved using the current set of principles (exotic mater) unless we find a way to circumnavigate the laws of thermodynamics, but there may be new discoveries and mechanisms we just don't yet know that might provide a pathway to do this or something else we haven't thought of.

Meanwhile, it's wonderful to think of such things and peel back more secrets of our universe and probably something unexpected will come all this.

Hi Hero.

You wrote: "I have serious reservations that warp drive will ever be achieved using the current set of principles (exotic mater) ..."

I agree, but I suppose it depends a bit on what we mean by "warp drive". If it means faster than light, I think it's dead in the water. If it means near light-speed, it may be possible. If one can achieve say 0.99c, the time dilation factor (gamma) on the spacecraft will be ~7:1, which means the ship can travel 7 of our light-years in one year on-board time.

May one perhaps call this warp 7?

Jorrie

Och if ya cannae change the laws of physics, then change a wee definition!

Aye, warp 7 it is cap'n.

Hi Del.

Yea, I believe Scotty sometimes struggled to achieve warp 10, which, by my definition would be 'only' v=0.995c. AFAIK, this is about as fast as we have been able to accelerate electrons in accelerators, so maybe there is indeed a 'barrier' there...

Jorrie

Well, warp drive is really not faster than light travel. It is analogous to following a twisty road in a sports car that makes a large loop and then some smart-arse kid on a mountain bike beats you by cutting a straight path from point A to B.

In our world, the curved loop really looks straight, but that is just a relative perspective.

My grumble with the whole process is one with quantum physics. I understand that there are a few proposals on the board. One is a "traditional" wormhole that is shored up with exotic matter (negative energy). The other method is more like a moving side walk. I think the person that developed the theory is named Alcubierre (not sure of the spelling). His principle involves collapsing space in front of the vehicle and expanding it behind the space vehicle. The Alcubierre drive still requires exotic matter, but the space vehicle is inside a bubble and does not exceed light speed inside the bubble. However, there are no known reasons why space can not move faster than light.

So where's the rub? For me, it is how do you mine the exotic matter? Let's assume it is the vast quantity required that represents the barrier, but how do we harvest it without violating the second law of thermodynamics? The problem is one of cosmic banking. We can withdraw negative energy, but it is only a loan. We know negative energy exists and the Casmire Effect proves it, at least in my mind. However, we can take low levels of negative energy for long (relatively) times or we can take high amounts for a tiny impulse of time. Yet we must pay back the the amount borrowed with interest. If we borrow an impulse of negative energy the interest rate is less than if we borrow for longer durrations, but in every case we must repay that "note" with positive energy and in an amount that is greater than the negative energy amount we borrowed.

As I understand it, the amount of negative energy we can harvest is really trivial compared to the amount we need for even a microscopic warp bubble. I think the energy density increases by the 4th power for any given radius.

Another hurdle for the Alcubierre drive is how do you control it? There is no known way to send data (read that as operational commands) from inside the warp bubble to the outside of the bubble where the warp generation engine lies.

The Alcubierre drive also has some other interesting issues that I am not sure about. What happens when the warp bubble encounters mass or energy in its path?

I fully understand we are at the very infancy of technology and physics of warp drive and quantum theory and I expect that many, many theories will bloom into existence and be crushed a short while latter. While I have great reservations of the use of exotic matter as a means of warp drive technology as it is outlined now, this is all part of the discovery process and in the future we will know things that we can only guess at now and in many cases not guess at all. That is why I feel these discussions are valuable steps. One thing we have demonstrated as a species is that if we can conceive something, sooner or later we can realize it. So I would not bet the farm that warp drive is impossible.

I have an issue with calling velocities that are sub-light speed any form of warp drive since they do not warp space, per se.

Great subject, Jorrie!!!

<May one perhaps call this warp 7?>

Ahah! According to various publications to hand, the Star Trek warp factor index related to the cube of the vessel speed relative to light speed. So if the Enterprise were travelling at 7 times the speed of light then its warp factor would be 7^1/3, or 1.91 (say 2). Sorry. How nerdy is that?

This thread could boldly go where no-one has gone before......

Hey, but PWS, "... the cube of the vessel speed relative to light speed" could also mean 7³, not so? Now that's some speed! Nerdy? Never...

Jorrie

Dear PWSlack, I am old enough to remember the original STAR TREK and even went to the conventions. Warp 7 was 343 times C velocity. (7 cubed).

Dragonsfarm

Bravo!! Now you are thinking out side the box!!

Dude, Ive never been in the box. Ever.

Just 'cos I have doubts about some folks ideas does not mean I am adverse to addressing these types of problem; it's what I do every day.

Personally I think FTL is less than possible - note I did not say 'impossible.' Subliminal travel at velocities approaching significant portions if C is something I think is achievable.

ZPE laser drives for example are a possibility. Aldrin & Barnes wrote about this in Encounter with Tiber and while not exactly a simple solution it's worth investigation. Something like Brads laser fans would be needed in this case. Alastair Reynold postulates taperd 'aero-dynamic' diamond hulls for his 'lighthugger' craft.

On a more immediate note though rather than worry about interstellar travel we shoudl really be addressing the means of taking the first step.

Cheap and easy access to orbit (and then the planets) is the immediate challenge.

Skyhooks, mass driver first stages, orbital elevators all are concepts that material science are approaching singularity with and I've got to believe that withing the next 50 years we can get there. Of course, political will to achieve this is needed.

The space race with the Chinese might just be a good thing after all

The space race with the Chinese might just be a good thing after all.

Ah someone saying something positive about the Chinese! Didn't they invent gunpowder and produce the first rockets?

(Quick check of your Avatar..yup...not from US )

Let's just say for the argument's sake that FTL travel has already been accomplished. What system would be employed to prevent collisions?

Would a "wormhole' to another part of the universe permit FTL travel without fear of colliding with something a large as a hydrogen atom? (which would have the same effect as colliding with the sun according to current theories).

Hi TK,

Our thoughts can travel faster than light...does that help? Although my thoughts often collide with things they weren't s'posed to alight on .

Del

(PS... Did you see this little bit of Del stuff ?)

See reply 22.

At supra light velocities (or even where a significant percentage of C is achieved) avoidance is not a possibility, destruction of debris is the only realistic alternative. Magnetic 'guides' are another alternative that could possibly be mated to a Bussard type ramjet although I'm half remember reading somewhere that the level of interstellar hydrogen is now thought to be too low to allow this to work.

Wormholes are a totally different proposition since the apparent velocity would only be greater than C from an outside observer, not to the local space/time. Therefore debris avoidance would not be a problem.

Interesting, the "destruction of debris" concept. But wouldn't safe travel at supra light velocities require total annihilation of any possible impacting matter?

Also, assuming FTL is possible, it would require management of local gravity according to the theory of relativity. This would imply the existence of "gravitrons" and perhaps negative gravity. For collision aviodance sake wouldn't the projection of negative gravity fields be preferred over magnetism which has no effect on non magnetic matter?

I don't really think that supra light velocities are achievable in 'normal' space (whatever that really is) but that something like this might be a realistic method of solving the debris collision problem at sublight (light-hugger) velocities.

As you state under general relativity it might be safe to assume that establishing significant percentages of C woud require control of the local gravitational field.

However I'm not 100% convinced that the universe is as simple as we currently believe and that we are as constrained as we seem to be by the current understanding of general relativity. I'd like to point to the recent discoveries of giant planets orbiting stars at ludicrously fast rates as just one of the unexplained mysteries going on right under our noses...

Time to re-examine Einsteinian Physics under the new discoveries? I think it might.

Thank you Philo, I do agree whole heartedly we know so little about the universe that theorizing borders on fantasy. We seem to be taking a step backward from Einsteinien fundamentalism toward a physics anarchy with each new revelation, each new unexplained mystery.

Perhaps indeed it is time to re examine Einsteinien Physics but where do we start? The Einstienien world is not so unstable as to be so easily assaulted and vanquished.

Quantum Physics has tried but often finds itself inadvertently reinforcing Einsteinien concepts. Multidimensional mathematics support alternate views of non Einstienien worlds but rest on legs buried deeply in Einsteinien soil. From what pulpit does the new voice of reason arise?

We stand on the shoulders of giants, never more so than when we assault the boundaries of their and out own beliefs and theories.

Perhaps (and I'm way out on a limb here), just as the Newtonian universe established rules that were valid from a certain view point, the Einsteinian universe will prove to also be perfectly valid in its way. In the same way that Einstein came to his theories by way of his predecessors we will in time do the same thing.

Of course this is already happening with Hawking et al.

Hi taejonkwando.

You asked: "Would a "wormhole' to another part of the universe permit FTL travel without fear of colliding with something a large as a hydrogen atom?"

AFAIK, wormhole physics is so different from that of the ordinary world that, should one be able to open (and hold open) a cosmic wormhole, the other particles in there should not pose a problem.

Ordinary space would surely not be a friendly place for high speed travel: not only atoms, but photons become a problem (at c, all photons are "infinitely blue-shifted"...)

Jorrie

This is pretty much why I think supra light travel in normal space is unlikely. I never say impossible 'cos that way you know some smart arse will find a way!

Wormhole physics is as you state so different that trying to second guess how things will react in that enviroment is.... Difficult.

More data needed.

Hmmm, 'dark matter', isn't that what limits the speed of light? If not, then perhaps we have a chance at FTL travel if we can discover and use gravitrons (or whatever is the fundamental particle, wave or resonance which expresses gravity).

However if C is a function of dark matter then the all pervasive dark matter limits our ultimate velocity until interdimensional exploration discovers an opposing parallel universe without dark matter in which we can transit.

"Hmmm, 'dark matter', isn't that what limits the speed of light?"

Good one, taejonkwando, haven't heard this before, but I'm still amazed at the power of lateral thinking!

Taking this as possible and since there is about 4 times more dark matter than matter in the universe, what would the speed of light have been without dark matter? (Maybe a good Challenge question?)

In more 'practical' terms, maybe all that's required is for us to find a correlation between the speed of light and the CMB anisotropy (or something of that nature) and we may bag the Nobel prize...

Jorrie

Thank you for the nice compliment Jorrie.

Hmmmm, you certainly pose a difficult question. I can only hazard a guess that the propagation of light (or gravity,or any electromagnetic phenomena) would be faster than it is now without the limiting effects of dark matter. That is to assume there is no other energy propagation limiting phenomena beyond that of dark matter.

Let's take a look at some possible characteristics of dark matter. If it is possible for dark matter to inhibit the propagational velocity of electromagnetic (or particle) energy to the speed limit of C it also may have a bandwidth of effectivity.

Quantum physics has difficulty explaining the simultaneous behavior of companion particles when only one is stimulated. A dark matter lower threshold of effectivity (i.e. a bandwidth) might allow instantaneous energy propagation thus allowing this simultaneous particle behavior. At the other end of the atomic scale black hole physics allows us to possibly calculate the Q of dark matter's energy limiting spectrum.

I may have difficulty examining the next characteristic because lacks a name but if I called it "viscosity" it might be close to what I have in mind. If we can assign the characteristic of "viscosity" to dark matter we can then have the velocity of energy propagation from the zero of a black hole to C and to the "infinite" velocity of quantum particle influence.

Using Mr Reynold's brilliant equation we might be able to predict the ultimate velocity of energy without the velocity limits imposed by dark matter by looking at the point when energy becomes turbulent and reduces all coherence to noise.

I apologize for not having this completely thought out however the ultimate velocity of electromagnetic and subatomic energies may be just as Prof. Einstein predicted, C squared.

Hi taejonkwando.

One of the problems with a "dark matter inhibits light propagation" postulate is that it may already be in conflict with observation. Dark energy was many orders of magnitude denser in the early universe, yet we do not observe any change in the speed of light since then. The measurement of the speed of light over the vast distances cannot be precise, but it could not possibly have been orders of magnitude different than today.

You wrote: "Quantum physics has difficulty explaining the simultaneous behavior of companion particles when only one is stimulated."

My feeling is that quantum physics is not the one with the problem; it is relativity that has the problem. On the other hand, no information has yet been sent as faster than c...

You wrote: "If we can assign the characteristic of "viscosity" to dark matter we can then have the velocity of energy propagation from the zero of a black hole to C and to the "infinite" velocity of quantum particle influence".

Careful with the black hole and c=0 idea - the local velocity of light remains c near or even inside a black hole. There is however a delay when measured in a distant reference frame, so in a way you are right.

No one has (or is likely to) think this one all the way through!

Jorrie

Dear Jorrie and taejonkwando,

What if Dark Matter and the ether were one and the same? Neither one can be affected in a purely physical manner both can be affected electrically (i.e. electromagnetically). That is how the generator built by John Searle works. It effectively taps into the flux of dark matter (i.e. ether). Please don't site the Michelson-Morly experiment. It only disproved an ether wind, not ether that is moving with the earth. For example if you drop a stone into a pond the ripples spread out but not at the same speed that the stone struck the water. Why? Because the medium (water) can't move at the same speed. A bubble in the ether (space time flux) is capable of moving at a higher rate of speed because it is not subject to the same rules. (density, inertia, etc.) And if you remember the "Warp Drive" of Star Trek did not take place in "normal" space but in "Sub-space" a mathematically defined and artificially created space time bubble.

Dragonsfarm

Hi Dragonsfarm, you wrote: "What if Dark Matter and the ether were one and the same? "

It would mean that the aether has mass, which is difficult to grasp...

"Please don't site the Michelson-Morly experiment. It only disproved an ether wind, not ether that is moving with the earth."

Yea, but there are a long list of other observations that disprove the existence of any form of detectable aether. If it is undetectable, why bother?

Jorrie

Dear Jorrie, You wrote "It would mean that aether has mass..." Aren't Dark Matter and Dark Energy only theoretical? Does a magnetic field have mass? You also wrote "If it is undetectable why bother?" It is detectable, but only through high levels of electromagnetism.

Thanks Dragonsfarm

Hi Dragonsfarm, in my way of thinking I can put dark matter and aether into the same category. I'm just having trouble with the muddy energy/matter definition. I'm quoting Wiki on the concept of aether below;

The concept of the aether impacted science long after scientists had rejected the ancient theory of the five elements. Prior to fully modern theories of electromagnetism, many scientists applied the term "aether" to the pervasive medium through which they thought light must propagate. The modern understanding of electromagnetism, including Einstein's particle theory of light and various scientific experiments of general relativity, has removed the need for a substance like aether to fill the otherwise empty parts of the universe.

Newton's and Maxwell's aether model (the latter being a "classic static aether") were both developed from this classical element. However, the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment in 1887 led to the decline of the aether model. Albert Einstein, in an interpretation he offered for his theory of special relativity, dismissed it, as per Occam's razor; and, though he later reinstated a logical need for an aether in a commentary on his theory of general relativity, modern astrophysical theories refer to this as Dark Energy/Matter.

Note the last sentence where Einstein felt the need to consider aether (or later known as dark energy/matter) in his commentary about general relativity.

Dear Taejonkwando , Thank you for your support. Einstein gave us the basics about general relativity, but even he could not include gravity in his equations. And in my research in have discovered something interesting: 186,000 miles per second (i.e. light speed) was an average that was agreed upon.

Thanks Dragonsfarm

I think we can all agree the theories regarding Dark Matter/Dark Energy (and let's throw in Zero Point Energy as well), need much more work. I suspect many in the halls of theoretical physics are delightfully engaged in highly polarizing discussions over these issues.

Defining the universe has long been a goal of many great thinkers and such musings have brought us closer to understanding just how insignificant we truely are.

I'm only curious, having absolutely no need for the rationalization of any of the aforementioned hypotheses. I even deny having any use for (oh my God) Einstein and his ravings and so far I've been quite successful as an engineer in spite of my heresy LOL.

I truely admire those who try to understand the workings of God, however in fields of engineering such knowledge usually doesn't pay the bills.

Dear Taejonkwando: You wrote "...so far I've been quite successful in my career as an engineer in spite of my heresy."

Heresy, as you know, is the beginning of true wisdom. LOL.

Dragonsfarm

Like you, I certainly don't fear heresy. During the exotic days of the Apollo Space Program inventions were literally scheduled. Imagine you are given the task of inventing something, something no one has ever created before.

That task assignment was a regular occurence in our group and usually you had less than a month to complete the task. It's odd now to think of that level of pressure as I sit my office relativly isolated from the general activity in this facility. But back in those days when your peers were creating inventions you performed to that level as well. Thinking "outside the box" was not exceptional, it was an assignment.

We were all heretics, slaying conventional wisdom with the blade of revolutionary innovation. The protectors of "we don't do it this way" fell by the wayside as we, the proponents of "we've never tried this, let's do it", pushed and kicked our way into the space age. You might say heresy was our religion and the goal to put men on the moon was our god.

Hi taejonkwando, when you wrote: "I even deny having any use for (oh my God) Einstein and his ravings and so far I've been quite successful as an engineer in spite of my heresy LOL.", I understand your point, but not needing Einstein in our usual engineering environments does not really translate to heresy, I hope(?).

Even in my aerospace career, I have never once needed Einstein. But we engineers are always curious about how things work...

Jorrie

I'm curious too, but like you said "Even in my aerospace career, I have never once needed Einstein". Neither have I, except a secret longing to conjure his spirit to help me through some difficult math, particularly in the days before hand held calculators when we were plotting load paths through titainium and stainless steel honeycomb panels.

Speaking of calculators, I remember the constant clatter of those monsterous Freiden calculators in those heady days of the Apollo program. The Freiden was only a few steps removed from the Babbage calculating engine being essentially the same except electrically driven.

For some odd reason (perhaps nostalgia) I've been searching for one of those old relics, perhaps to display with my K&E slide rule and a 30 X 40 Quadrille Pad, the essential tools which helped put Neil Armstrong and others on the Moon.

Newtonian physics, relics such as mentioned above and an incredible amount of ingenuity launched mankind into space and ultimately to stand on another world. Certainly Professor Einstein was in some way an inspiration to us all with his thought provoking Theory of Relativity. Although I must admit at that time I was far more interested (and still am) in my avatar.

Let's see if you're old enough to remember what these are;

<a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l269/ericphoto_2006/keypunch/Image0010-2.jpg" border="0" alt="Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket"></a>

Hi Dragonsfarm, how do you mean: "Einstein gave us the basics about general relativity, but even he could not include gravity in his equations."?

Einstein's general relativity is all about gravity...

You further say: "186,000 miles per second (i.e. light speed) was an average that was agreed upon."

I can't agree. The value comes out of Maxwell's equations. It is today taken as a universal constant and then used to define the length of the meter and many other things.

You may be right that early attempts to measure the speed of light would have taken averages of a number of measurements, but that does not mean that the constant c is an "agreed upon average".

Jorrie

OK, now I have TWO headaches ( but I'm getting used to this).

Jorrie,

1. I will re-ask the questions I asked in the Cosmic Clock blog and see how the answers relate to this issue;

a. Since scientists have slowed , stopped and accelerated the speed of light to infinity through teleportation, doesn't that make a hash of the whole "speed of light is a constant" concept?

b. If you can slow light to a stop, you do have a non-irrational solution to achieving the speed of light, and I didn't notice the universe gaining infinite mass at that point (or maybe I just missed the headline). So wouldn't slowing light instead of speeding up the craft represent a solution?

And generally, Einstein's theories must have holes in them or else we could not have tachyons, which only travel faster than light. Perhaps we should learn what they do and copy it.

Hi surplusdealdude.

Attempted answers to your questions:

"a. Since scientists have slowed , stopped and accelerated the speed of light to infinity through teleportation, doesn't that make a hash of the whole "speed of light is a constant" concept?"

Not that I'm aware of. To slow light down is nothing - every piece of glass does it. 'Teleportation' has not worked faster than light, yet. The speed of light in vacuum, in free space, is a universal constant as far as we know. No information or material particle has ever been observed to exceed that speed.

"b. If you can slow light to a stop, you do have a non-irrational solution to achieving the speed of light, and I didn't notice the universe gaining infinite mass at that point (or maybe I just missed the headline). So wouldn't slowing light instead of speeding up the craft represent a solution?"

Every photon that is absorbed by anything is 'slowed to a stop' - which simply means it ceases to exist, its energy transferred to that thing. So it seems that helps nothing in our quest for going at 'warp speed'.

Jorrie

Hello Jorrie, just a quick question on nonlocality C is the universal speed limit. Entangled particles react instantly over any distance. This action is described as zero time rather than Superluminal. Whats the difference?

Hi YW. QM is not quite my field, so the best I can give you is that information cannot be sent by entangled particles in zero time. The 'information' is randomized, so it contains no info! There is another process needed to assure that information can be transferred and it operates at c.

Jorrie

Thank you for you answers, Jorrie - I went back and read up on tachyons a bit and discovered that they are still only theoretical.

But Scientists HAVE altered the speed of light, both in slowing it to a stop (then allowing it to resume travelling, not like the absorption you mentioned), and in teleporting a photon, which brings lightspeed up to an infinite speed. I remember reading about these experiments, they happened in the past few years.

If the speed of light is variable, then the warp drive system is attainable, or something on the order of a warp drive, no?

Hi surplusdealdude, you wrote: "But Scientists HAVE altered the speed of light, both in slowing it to a stop (then allowing it to resume travelling, not like the absorption you mentioned), "

How did they know it's the same photon? I've just done a similar experiment: I've shone a high energy infra-red lamp at a piece of black metal. The photons came to a stop and then came out again as infra-red photons. But were they the same photons?

"and in teleporting a photon, which brings lightspeed up to an infinite speed. I remember reading about these experiments, they happened in the past few years."

Can you still find the reference? I think these were spin-entangled pairs of photons, not single photons, which will just not violate the speed of light principle, try as we might!

Jorrie

Well, you're right about the teleportation - I did some homework and found that they were entagled pairs - so, if I understand it, the information was teleported, not the photon.

As for slowing down light and stopping, then restarting it, I found these links;

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-08/epfd-ltt081905.php

http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/2001/01.24/01-stoplight.html

Hi again surplusdealdude, no, not even information can be "teleported" at speeds greater then c. As I said before, entangled pairs alone cannot transmit information.

On the "exceeding the speed of light" experiments, you may want to check a lengthy thread that I started some time ago: The Speed of Darkness, where this phenomenon has been discussed ad-nauseum!

Jorrie

Dear Jorrie you wrote "One of the problems with a "dark matter inhibits light propagation" postulate is that it may already be in conflict with observation. Dark energy was many orders of magnitude denser in the early universe, yet we do not observe any change in the speed of light since then. The measurement of the speed of light over the vast distances cannot be precise, but it could not possibly have been orders of magnitude different than today."

I'm confused about the term "dark energy" as we were discussing "dark matter". Is this the same as Zero point energy?

Hi taejonkwando, sorry, I did a 'bad' there: it was supposed to read: "Dark matter was many orders of magnitude denser in the early universe, yet we do not observe any change in the speed of light since then."

There are many 'slips of the tongue' that happen because of the similar terms: 'dark energy' and 'dark matter'.

Dark energy's density is constant over time, we think, and it is apparently not the same as zero point energy, but I don't think there is consensus on that. Both dark matter and dark energy are very slippery concepts though.

Jorrie

Ok I'm glad to see you're human after all Jorrie (LOL). Guru status requires you to be perfect you know haha...

Anyway it's my confusion with the muddy definition of dark matter/dark energy because from high school on I grew up leaning on the term and definition of "aether" by both Eintein and Maxwell to describe the force we knew was there but was still unmeasureable with current technology.

" Matter", to be called as such still has to conform to certain rules of physics whether Newtonian or Einsteinien and, because we ascribe certain properties and give it a place to exist, it should have some measureable degree of stability as any other matter would have OR we are using the wrong terminology to describe this neblous phenomena.

I don't disagree with idea of dark matter having more characteristic "something" eons ago. You said more dense, I think of it as being more dense and turbulent. I can imagine dark matter having density but also a dark matter far more turbulent after the big bang than now.

Dark matter less turbulent therefore more diaphanous meaning our observations and measurements are also subject to those same influences. What data supports the assumption the propagation of light was limited to C in that femtosecond after the big bang and is it reasonable to assume the velocity of energy propagation has remained unchanged throughought a mass of diminishing density such as dark matter?

Assuming dark matter was created at the instant of the big bang, dark matter's diminishing density is to be expected when viewed from the infinitely tiny confines of the first beginnings of time to the galactic scale we now know as the universe. Most of this discussion assumes C is an eternal constant but it may not be such in the uneven densities of dark matter. Black holes, where the density of dark matter is at its greatest, could alter the propagation of energy to a velocity far less than our "eternal constant" of C.

A slippery slope indeed.......

Hi taejonkwando, you wrote: "Guru status requires you to be perfect you know haha..."

I suppose you realize how to obtain 'guru' status on this forum...

You also said: "I can imagine dark matter having density but also a dark matter far more turbulent after the big bang than now."

Yep, from what is known today, dark matter interacts gravitationally with ordinary matter, yet only very weakly in any other way (that's why they are called WIMPs). It's 'turbulence' as you called it, did help to form the structures that we see today.

You asked: "What data supports the assumption the propagation of light was limited to C in that femtosecond after the big bang and is it reasonable to assume the velocity of energy propagation has remained unchanged throughout a mass of diminishing density such as dark matter?"

We can obviously not measure up to "that femtosecond after the big bang", so we do not know the speed of light then for certain, but various astronomical observations from when the universe was less than a million years old supports the constancy of c. One such example is the flash of distant supernovae that reflects off gas clouds in their vicinity, at various distances. The speed of light can be determined pretty accurately from such observations.

Hope this helps despite the "muddy definition(s)"!

Jorrie

Since the current belief supports Dark "Matter" (not Dark Energy) reacts to gravity I have to respectfully disagree with conclusion that the speed of light has not changed over time.

Dark Matter is unseen, and completely permeates our universe according to theory. This also implies the very measurement techniques we utilize to measure C are also permeated and subject to the influence of dark matter.

Einstein implies that time itself is subject to elasticity changing with the influence of gravity which could affect observation of distant phenomena. Determining C with everything in motion, the influence of dark matter and an elastic time base leaves the assunption measurements of C from the most distant reaches of the universe are compromised.

Dark Matter could and probably does alter our perception of time and therefore distance. The propagation of light and other forms of electromagnetic energy (EME) could easily be limited in velocity by the "viscosity" of Dark Matter.

Since I have yet to ascribe all of the properties to this 'viscosity' please accept, for the sake of this discussion, Dark Matter is 'fluid like' and possesses some 'fluid' characteristics.

As I mentioned before it would be difficult to assume Dark Matter is stable without eddies and currents or turbulent motion, the residual of the tremendous forces of creation during the Big Bang.

We know today EME's propagational velocities are slowed and reflected in turbulent mediums. Wind shear radar is an example of turbulent air affecting the propagation of EME. Even though Dark Matter weakly interacts with our environment (as in WIMPS)that influence still modifies our observations and does so non uniformly because of the random fluid like motion of Dark Matter.

If Dark Matter reacts to gravity and light reacts to gravity there must be some commonality between EME and Dark Matter which also imples either may affect the other's behavior. EME's interaction with Dark Matter would provide the basis for concluding Dark Matter is the natural velocity limiting factor in the propagation of EME.

Taking this concept one step further, Dark Matter's turbulence would inhibit EME propagational velocity even more therefore providing premise the distant reaches of the universe are actually closer than current measurements lead us to believe.

Jorrie, this may all be sophomoric on your level however I do hope there are enough unknowns to discuss these options. As Dragonslayer said "heresy is the beginning of wisdom" and I am an avowed heretic however you as my guru, may evangelically "lead me back into the flock" if these postulations are unmerited.

Hi taejonkwando. "Dark Matter is unseen, and completely permeates our universe according to theory. This also implies the very measurement techniques we utilize to measure C are also permeated and subject to the influence of dark matter. "

But how do you think this will influence the measurement of the speed of light?

This relativistic view is that 'pockets' of strong curvature (like around the Sun or a black hole) influence the apparent speed of light, a.k.a. the "Shapiro delay". When the general density is the same everywhere, there is no influence, because then there is no spacetime curvature. OK, so light coming through denser 'pockets' is delayed, but this is accounted for and in any case, the amount is very, very tiny!

"Wind shear radar is an example of turbulent air affecting the propagation of EME."

Are you sure there is a 'speed if light' effect and not just a scintillation type of effect?

"Taking this concept one step further, Dark Matter's turbulence would inhibit EME propagational velocity even more therefore providing premise the distant reaches of the universe are actually closer than current measurements lead us to believe."

The long range distances are not determined by using the speed of light! It is just conveniently expressed as so may light-years, mainly in the popular literature. The main cosmological distance measurement tools are Cepheid variable stars, supernovae SN1A brightness and (indirectly) cosmological redshift.^[1]

Jorrie

[1] I have a short piece on cosmological distance measurements on my website (free pdf download, section 16.3).

Ok Jorrie, I guess I'll have to buy your book. Obviously I can't seem to get this across unless I put it in the context with which you are familiar LOL (although I really think you are toying with me on these points).

1. However to answer your first critique let me illustrate the point by taking our measurement device and our light source underwater and lets just say we've never been above the surface. Now we as scientist 'fish' have determined C to be about 299,000 kilometers per second (which I believe is the velocity of light in seawater at a pressure of 3 bar). However later an amphibian scientists performs the same experiment in the atmosphere and discovers light travels at 300,000 kM/sec. What now? Our cherished belief in C as a constant is suddenly unfounded.

And so, if we were able to perform our experiment in a Dark Matter free environment perhaps we would be surprised when we measured the velocity of any EME. I propose the velocity of light would be greater. How much greater? I don't know (yet).

2. The wind shear comment may be imply scintillation or reflection Both require a modification of propagational velocity.

3. I realize long distance measurement is not predicated on the speed of light but because C is assumed to be a constant it is used in the calibration of the distance measurement equation.

Hi again taejonkwando, don't underestimate your power of persuasion - this may be 'toying' with a topic or points, but as an educator, it is also serious business to me...

On your first point: c was never said to be constant everywhere, just in empty space ("in vacuum"). And if you go to a nearby "heavy concentration of dark matter" and park your lab there, you will find that the speed of light is still c if measured locally. It is only when measured over extended pieces of curved spacetime that the average speed deviate from c, in the + or - direction, depending on orientation.

You wrote: "I realize long distance measurement is not predicated on the speed of light but because C is assumed to be a constant it is used in the calibration of the distance measurement equation."

Not quite. C is only used in expressing distance in the common terms of light-years. As you probably know, astronomers measure distances in parsecs (parallax seconds) that has nothing to do with c. Even "short" astronomical distances are not done using the speed of light. The distance to the nearer stars are measured by parallax as the Earth orbits the Sun.

OK, so where does it leave dark matter in this speed of light issue? I think we agree that evenly spread dark matter does not influence the speed of light. Concentrated patches (inhomogeneities, not turbulence, I think) may delay the light from far away places ever so slightly (~.01%). This error is a few orders of mag smaller than the uncertainties in cosmological measurements...

Jorrie

Good Monday Morning Jorrie. I am ordering your book and I will read it in the hope I will be able to understand your frame of reference (and that of probably every other physicist LOL). Physics is always interesting but not my strongest suite. How something works is some engineer's solution to a problem. But why that something works involves understanding the laws of physics and that is what interests me.

It seems the old laws of physics have been derided and looked upon as "old school" by the new physics of the Quantum school and the cosmological school's Dark Matter/Energy and Zero point energy. But they all seem to exist only with the help of near fantasy contrivences and convoluted logic.

In this string we have discussed phenomena which has yet to be defined except to say it must exist in order to complete the current accepted view of the universe. We believe this view of the universe is rational and therefore supportable with theories and facts as we are able to derive (or accept)them.

However, in many cases we have been led astray, at times by our most illustrious thinkers, only to find later they have been reversed or revised either by themselves or by new evidence.

So in effect, it is quite possible our current view of the universe and it's laws will be revised once again, perhaps casting out all we once held as true and inviolate. All, that is, except the tried and true old school physics of Newton, Carnot, Fowler, et al.

The old school needs no "string theory, dark. matter" or any other construct to support it's existence as true and viable. The old school works every day in our lives and has been proven over and over again to be repeatable and predictably valid unlike some theorizing of quantum adherents and cosmologists.

If we are to push the boundaries of physics beyond the confines established by the masters we do need to speculate, to intepret what we observe in a different way. However it would seem to be wise to keep our feet well planted on the firm soil of old school physics before declaring, and then having to embarrasingly abandon, another new path to Nirvana.

Good Monday Morning Jorrie.......... another new path to Nirvana.

It is that very point that I have so poorly articulated in an effort to politely suggest that we have gone astray in our science, and that you have stated simply and directly.

At some point in the time-line of our understanding of the universe I was asked to accept more than I was willing to on the word of those in the know. I challenge some bored mathematician to look back in the record. Go through the data and evaluate where the 'keep it simple' approach was discarded. It seems that there is just too much contingent data. I suspect that somewhere, someone has forgotten to carry a proverbial 1 or failed to cancel like terms in this grand equation. We are at a point in time where the old should be challenged. It is laisse faire to allow the continuation of this illogical 'contingency math' as I call it.

Obviously I am not a pure scientist, nor physicist. I am however smart enough to recognize that it does not all add up. And further no one is willing to expose the illusion and all the falsehoods as a fragile balancing act where 'anything' can equate.

Just my opinion.

cr3

Taejonkwando, it pleases me greatly that you have made these points in such an articulate manner, where I have wrestled with language for so long to suggest similar. Alas, my education fails me where my curiosity grips firm.

Hi taejonkwando. Enjoy the read! While it seems that we are now in a philosophizing cycle, here goes:

You wrote: "It seems the old laws of physics have been derided and looked upon as "old school" by the new physics of the Quantum school and the cosmological school's Dark Matter/Energy and Zero point energy. But they all seem to exist only with the help of near fantasy contrivances and convoluted logic."

I would not be so harsh on these guys - they are just trying to push the limits of our limited understanding. If it was not for such people, the world would have been simpler but also very much poorer.

"However, in many cases we have been led astray, at times by our most illustrious thinkers, only to find later they have been reversed or revised either by themselves or by new evidence. "

But that's what science is all about, isn't it? What fun would it have been if we knew it all? If we overdo "keep[ing] our feet well planted on the firm soil of old school physics", we may miss a lot. It takes all kinds to advance (and maybe eventually destroy) civilization...

Enough - I think I'm a better engineer/scientist than philosopher!

Jorrie

Thanks Jorrie. Your last comment had me laughing. I'm also much better at engineering than philosophy (thank God, LOL). I'd be starving if I had to rely on my philosophical ramblings.

I'm only "harsh on these guys" because, although they may be pioneers, I have issues with their seeming know-it all attitudes.

In chronicling the this "fringe community's" many reversals from pontificating announcements of discovering something akin to "The Theory of Everything", to later an embarrassed "uh, we don't use that anymore" (string theory being one of the more glaring examples), I find a severe lack of discipline.

Where are the mentors, the proctors, the senior members of this community when peer review is called for? Are they so challenged by these arrogant cosmic cowboys that they fail to provide the calming influence, the wise council so much needed in that community? I wonder....

Dear Teajonkwando, The reason that the wise council is threatened is because many of the past theories that were thought to be S.W.A.G. (scientific wild a** guess) turned out to be true and vice-versa and they are afraid of being wrong. The thing that they have forgotten (or choose to ignore) is that one learns much more from one's mistakes than one's successes.

Dragon